Revisiting the antinuclear antibody test with emphasis on a new pattern: anti‐DFS70 antibody

Hissaria, Pravin; Broadfoot, Andrew; Baumgart, Karl W

doi:10.5694/mja2.12103

Topics

The diagnosis of systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs), such as systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), is based on a constellation of clinical features and presence of supportive specific autoantibodies. The antinuclear antibody (ANA) test is the most common first‐line test for these groups of diseases. Although several methods can detect ANA, indirect immunofluorescence remains the most widely used assay and the method of choice.1 The most significant attribute of any screening test is its high negative predictive value; that is, a negative test rules out the possibility of these diseases. The ANA test fulfils this requirement, with a negative predictive value of about 99% for SLE and 95% for other diseases such as scleroderma, Sjögren syndrome and type 1 autoimmune hepatitis.2 However, the ANA test has a very poor positive predictive value of less than 10% in a community setting because healthy people might have a positive ANA result.3 The titre or concentration of antibody in the patient's serum is determined by serial doubling dilutions, starting from a dilution of 1:40 and then 1:80 up to 1:2560.3 Therefore, the use of higher screening dilutions can improve the positive predictive value of the ANA test. The potential clinical significance of a positive ANA test can be further determined by ordering for antibodies to extractable nuclear antigens (ENAs), extended ENA tests, and tests for double‐stranded DNA (dsDNA) antibodies.

1 Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, SA
2 SA Pathology, Adelaide, SA
3 Douglass Hanly Moir Pathology, Sydney, NSW

Correspondence: Pravin.Hissaria@sa.gov.au

Competing interests:

No relevant disclosures.

1. Solomon DH, Kavanaugh AJ, Schur P, American College of Rheumatology Ad Hoc Committee on Immunologic Testing Guidelines. Evidence‐based guidelines for the use of immunological tests: antinuclear antibody testing. Arthritis Rheum 2002; 47: 434–444.
2. Abeles AM, Abeles M. The clinical utility of a positive antinuclear antibody test result. Am J Med 2013; 126: 342–348.
3. Tan EM, Feltkamp TE, Smolen JS, et al. Range of antinuclear antibodies in ‘healthy’ individuals. Arthritis Rheum 1997; 40: 1601–1611.
4. Arbuckle MR, McClain MT, Rubertone MV, et al. Development of autoantibodies before the clinical onset of systemic lupus erythematosus. N Engl J Med 2003; 349: 1526–1533.
5. Munroe ME, Young KA, Kamen DL, et al. Discerning risk of disease transition in relatives of systemic lupus erythematosus patients utilizing soluble mediators and clinical features. Arthritis Rheumatol 2017; 69: 630–642.
6. Jog RJ, James JA. Biomarkers in connective tissue diseases. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2017; 140: 1473–1483.
7. Ochs RL, Stein TW, Peebles CL, et al. Autoantibodies in interstitial cystitis. J Urol 1994; 151: 587–592.
8. Mahler M, Hanly JG, Fritzler MJ. Importance of the dense fine speckled pattern on HEp‐2 cells and anti‐DFS70 antibodies for the diagnosis of systemic autoimmune diseases. Autoimmun Rev 2012; 11: 642–645.
9. Conrad K, Röber N, Andrade LE, Mahler M. The clinical relevance of anti‐DFS70 autoantibodies. Clinic Rev Allerg Immunol 2017; 52: 202–216.
10. Mahler M, Parker T, Peebles CL, et al. Anti‐DFS70/LEDGF antibodies are more prevalent in healthy individuals compared with patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases. J Rheumatol 2012; 39: 2104–2110.
11. Mariz HA, Sato EI, Barbosa SH, et al. Pattern on the antinuclear antibody‐HEp‐2 test is a critical parameter for discriminating antinuclear antibody‐positive healthy individuals and patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases. Arthritis Rheum 2011; 63: 191–200.
12. Chan EK, Damoiseaux J, Carballo OG, et al. Report of the first international consensus on standardized nomenclature of antinuclear antibody HEp‐2 cell patterns 2014–2015. Front Immunol 2015; 6: 412.
13. Bizzaro N, Tonutti E, Villalta D. Recognizing the dense fine speckled/lens epithelium‐derived growth factor/p75 pattern on HEp‐2 cells: not an easy task! Comment on the article by Mariz et al. Arthritis Rheum 2011; 63: 4036–4037.
14. Gundín S, Irure‐Ventura J, Asensio E, et al. Measurement of anti‐DFS70 antibodies in patients with ANA‐associated autoimmune rheumatic diseases suspicion is cost‐effective. Auto Immun Highlights 2016; 7: 10.

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.